I voted yes.
Gives more of an opportunity for supply expansion since diluted mcap is lower which as a holder means they could own the same % but of a larger pie.
Also help prevents heightened IL for LP’s early on.
Overall great compromise in my opinion.
Then why do you care whether the airdrop is 14.5% of 6,250 or 4,000, or even 1.45% of 4,000? The only reason to increase the size of the initial airdrop is so airdrop recipients have more liquidity (ie can sell immediately). If you care about the long-term success of DIGG and Badger, why not start small and let it grow organically?
There’s no need to revisit this topic, we need to move to the next step
That doesn’t make any sense. Essentially means there would be an airdrop of 25% of the supply. Messes up all other decisions and mechanics decided upon by the community
But when we voted the price of BTC was much lower than it is now. Times change. We probably should have voted on market cap in USD terms, not BTC terms.
True…
But it’s just surprising that this topic is being brought up again. We’ve already voted on 6250…
Sorry but you can’t judge me. I’ve been here way before you and have more at stake than most here.
You are assuming, which makes an a$$ out of you and me.
You are assuming that all I want is to sell DIGG at first opportunity. All your statements are based on assumptions.
So please don’t even start.
I like the fact that the community is breaking out these important decisions. We only get 1 chance at this. There was alot to digest from previous discussions and there was never an official snapshot vote which needs to happen still
Well, I voted for a supply of 1562 on the first vote…so definitely in favour of reducing to 4000.
Lower is better for Digg. I’m damned sure of it.
Then please change the POLL on the top so we can see all the voters. Otherwise, it can be gamed by multiple new accounts.
All BIPs should show all voters for transparency.
Keeping good increase in price of $BTC, I am supporting the reduction in initial supply of $DIGG
with all respect, $btc wasn’t at ~ $32,000 when this was voted on previously. because $digg is entirely based on market cap with supply expansion & contraction, reducing initial supply makes sense with napkin numbers. market cap of $digg gives insight into the amount of money needed to move the price in oversimplified terms.
much consideration should be given to how $digg will play out as a rebase game that drives revenue to badgerDAO. strategy writers for sett strategies will be needed from jump. it’s about to get crazy
Won’t allow us to change now although I agree should show voters.
Absolutely this. Just like Coingecko shows market cap, not price, by default for rebasing tokens like DIGG, we should be voting on market cap (in USD). We could arbitrarily decide we want $1B market cap of DIGG at launch, but that would doom it to fail with huge negative rebases. I mean, I can create my own ERC20 token and sell 0.00000000001 to myself for $1, but it doesn’t mean I’m a trillionaire.
no one really talks about this but the rebase only changes the supply by 10% for the first 10 days. this should be widely spread because it gives insight into what is going to happen. i’m looking for the link with the formula for $digg rebase and will post in a second
pleae read this if you haven’t: https://www.notion.so/DIGG-FAQ-6048eb6dadba4e21813c6477a2e92593
summary:
“DIGG does not try to target 1 BTC all at once, instead attempting to do it over 10 rebase periods (while the buffer is set to 10%). To calculate change in supply we need to determine how far from the peg the current price is.”
This formula is:
Deviation from peg = (Current Price - Target Price) / Target Price
Rebase Amount = Current Supply * (Deviation From Peg/Rebase Multiplier)
New Supply = Current supply + Rebase Amount
I appreciate the interaction. FWIW I put all my BTC that I mined on my gaming PC back when it was worth a few $ each into Badger on day 1. This project is incredible. I’m also putting every badger I harvest into the wBTC/BADGER pool, and hit 6 figures about a week ago. I’m incredibly invested into this project and haven’t sold a single BADGER, except to swap for wBTC to increase my LP stake. I didn’t join gov forum until recently though.
The fact that you’re here on a Saturday night interacting in gov forums is great, and I’m sure you want DIGG to succeed. The way we get it to succeed is not by maximizing our initial airdrop, it’s by maximizing the positive rebases that will make us all wealthy.
For the long term implications for stakers I voted yes, it’ll help minimize IL for us. There are no other tokens priced as highly as BTC so it’s going to be an extremely volatile process to get to the target, not even counting the stakers who will surely dump.
I voted Yes as I would like to see this project be long term successful. I’m wary of those who are crying over 2k fewer DIGG, they may just be looking for an opportunity to sell. The logic that the BTC value has gone up tremendously over the last few days is good reasoning to lower the supply.
I voted yes, sad and slightly frustrated to see my airdrop shrink, but I think this is the right decision for Badger growth. Want a positive DIGG release instead of shit hitting the fan.
Please don’t forget to reward those who spent gas minting meme NFT’s, hoping that’s what the 0.5% is for. Ready for launch!
Voted yes. should reduce the supply firstly.